Problem of Evil

So when a tsunami kills tens of thousands of people or a child dies from cancer, that isn't an evil?

It's a product of the ontological contamination of sin. Every time you sin, you are contributing to that. Every rape, every murder, every death from cancer, you share responsibility in.

This isn't addressing the problem of evil. Epictetus does not draw a distinction between suffering caused by natural disaster and suffering caused by humans.

When a roof collapses on a church and kills everyone inside you are still faced with the exact same questions. God was either unable or unwilling to prevent it.

I wouldn't call it evil, I'd call it unfortunate. Lots of disease is spread via sin however, like AIDS, and natural disasters like wild fires and flooding are often a result of human idiocy or outright intentional evil.

If you want to eliminate all unfortunate events from the universe I really don't know how that could be done while leaving the universe as we know it intact, you need to throw causation out the window entirely. God could surely do it but if it meant the universe would change entirely from the ground up it probably interferes with his intentions.

That's fucking idiotic.

I was just trying to bring up things that are completely divorced from human agency. A random cancer wasn't anyone's fault and tsunamis aren't caused by humans either.

See this post
>I really don't know how that could be done while leaving the universe as we know it intact,

And this is where Epictetus concludes that there is no God worthy of being called "good" (if one exists at all) so religious is not a matter of concern.

God has the will to stop sin, but he chooses not to because it's like a butterfly effect or jenga, and the only way to forcibly stop its consequences is to forcibly stop it, which would undermine our free agency.

You think that because you have the Romish-Protestant juridical conception of sin

>You think that because you have the Romish-Protestant juridical conception of sin

No, that's seriously fucking idiotic. We can observe the causal factors that lead to all of those things. No amount of "sin" has been observed in those.

>Griffith
>did
>nothing
>wrong

Sin is metaphysical, not material

Yes, yes. That age old cop-out. We can observe all manner of material causes for these things, but surely sin, which seems to serve no function in the affair must play a part, because you really want it to.

You havn't addressed the question. You've moved the goal-post. You are still only discussing evil caused by humans. I already told you the problem of evil makes no distinction about the cause is.

I'll ask again. If a natural cause causes a church to collapse and kills everyone inside was God
1) Unwilling to stop it
2) Unable to stop it
If he was both willing and able why was it not stopped?

The fact that this problem is older than your religion but you still can't come up with an answer that doesn't move goalposts really says something.

Suffering isn't evil, it can just be (and often is) caused by evil.

Why is a church collapse evil? Why ought God prevent it? Is a rock falling down a hill evil? If not, what difference does it make if there is a man standing in its path? Man's opinion with what is and isn't evil is often wrong, some see a wolf eating a deer as evil, some don't. Some see a church collapse as some innate cosmic evil, some see it as a random event; a moralless (not immoral) result of the natural laws of the universe.

Sin is evil, anything else seems quite ambiguous. Can you be condemned to hell for something that isn't sinful? No. Therefore everything that isn't sin is either completely neutral or good, I'd suggest.

You actually can't directly observe causation, Hume pointed this out.

He's able but isn't going to at the cost of its repercussions.

>Can you be condemned to hell for something that isn't sinful?
I should change that to "WILL you be condemned"

God could condemn you unjustly, but he is just, and won't.

>Romish-Protestant
Stop coming up with bullshit terms, shillantine

In the "problem of evil" 'evil' refers to any sort of misfortune, suffering, or injustice regardless of cause. When you change the definition of the word "evil" to something else you are moving the goal post and not addressing the question.

Seriously was there anything wrong with Roman or Catholic? This is as bad as the "racial scientists" and their bullshit terms like "araynid".

Free will doesnt really make a lot of sense though, if our choices are made and our personality comes to be by a mix of our life experience and biology and god made everything and knows everything he knows that X person would do if it experiences Y life.
Do you understand? my english sucks, what I'm trying to say that free will is a mere ilusion for someone who can account for all the near infinity of variables that influences decision making.
The more you analize biblical concepts the more you understand that the simplest explanation is the most logical, and that explanation is that the people who wrote the bible were primitive humans and not a cosmical being.

lesser good is not equal to evil.

>Free will doesnt really make a lot of sense though, if our choices are made and our personality comes to be by a mix of our life experience and biology and god made everything and knows everything he knows that X person would do if it experiences Y life.
It only doesn't make sense if you make it out to be something magical.

Do you feel like you've made choices? Do you feel like you weren't coerced? That's free will. It's an experience like pain and pleasure.

It's all bullshit she/he comes up with to make the Catholic Church look bad.
Constantine is literally paid to shill for Orthodoxy. Not even joking. I see her/him here every single day, whether it is day or night, 24/7. I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than one person 2bh

God is absolute good.
The opposite of absolute good cannot be only "lesser" good and has to be absolute evil by its very nature. That is why all kinds of sins are equal in the eyes of God.

Then he isn't omnipotent.

The conclusion the problem of evil would draw is that God is malevolent since he is able but unwilling.

How would refute this?

Imagine if there was a small child drawning in a lake after a strong gust of wind has pushed him into it (ie he did not use free will to enter the lake). There is a life saver within an arms reach of you, you could throw the child it but choose not to and instead walk by.

He is, but he allows our agency in order that we be more than automatons.

You're agreeing with me, its a mere ilusion for someone who can account for all the variables, therefore its not an argument, there is no such thing as free will for an hipothetical being that can comprehend and know everything, if we chose to sin then it should be his reponsibility for creating all the variables that lead to that event.

Doing so wouldn't really impact any agency. If, however, God started making life preservers pop out of thin air constantly, it would change things quite a bit.

The problem of evil is a temporary problem that God is ready, willing and able to deal with, decisively, on His terms, and in His timing.

I argue that from the Christian viewpoint the argument of evil is flawed or otherwise irrelevant, as it assumes misfortune, suffering and injustice are innately evil when they're actually just a result of the ONLY manifestation of true evil in this universe which is sin; an active, knowing disobedience towards God and all his goodness. Man alone has the capability to knowingly disobey God (disregarding Satan) and so he alone is capable of being evil, anything else that only "seems" evil (unpleasantry) is either a just result of the natural universe (which is not evil in and of itself in any way) or a result of man being evil (which still does not make the result evil, but instead causes misfortune, suffering or injustice).

A chair isn't evil if the leg snaps off while you're sitting in it, it's unfortunate and unpleasant. Is God really "malevolent" if he doesn't keep your chair upright? I'd say no. Why does God not prevent things from being unpleasant? Because he has no obligation to, unpleasantry is not evil, it's morally neutral. Why does God not prevent man from being evil? Because it would prevent him from being free, which is what God wants.

Basically the argument of evil should really be called the argument of unpleasantry, in which case God has no obligation to make everything pleasant, there is no evil in the unpleasant and God is thus not malevolent for permitting unpleasantry.

What does agency have anything to do with the problem of evil? Like I said the problem draws no distinction between actions from free will or actions from other sources. Why should such a distinction even be made?

If I did not throw the life saver to the child would I be in the wrong?

If my answer to that is no, those that mean that free will doesn't exist?

This arguement only makes only makes sense if you buy into a bunch of Christian theology.

I do not think sin exists. Neither did the guy who wrote the problem of evil. The concept is completely meaningless to someone who is not a Christian. So your argument will only convince another Christian.

>truth seeking
Spooked hard

Fair enough. OP asked for a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and so I offered it.

We are not limited by only absolute good and absolute evil. In between those extremes lie a myriad of steps. If one of our actions fails to live up to the standard of absolute good that doesn't necessarily means that it was an evil one. Disobedience, which in this case can be equated to failing to live up to a certain standard in ones actions should not be confused with being limited to a binary choice of two opposites.

Then he wouldn't be omnibenevolent as he would put human agency over better outcomes. Besides, you are still refusing to adress a scenario not based on human action.

What does that even mean?

>Is God really "malevolent" if he doesn't keep your chair upright?
No but it certainly refutes the claim that god is omnibenevolent as he is capable of stopping the chair from breaking when you are sitting in it .

>Why does God not prevent things from being unpleasant?
Any omnibenevolent being that's also omnipotent most by definition prevent things from being unpleasant. Claiming that unpleasant experiences are necessary or a greater good is illogical in this case as an omnipotent being is capable of achieving the same results from a more pleasant experience and an omnibenevolent being would want the most kind outcome possible.

As someone not famillar with the term, what does the term Judeo-Christian mean?

>No but it certainly refutes the claim that god is omnibenevolent as he is capable of stopping the chair from breaking when you are sitting in it .
Absolutely not, there is nothing evil about a chair breaking or even you suffering because of a broken chair, it's not even a moral event, it's amoral. YOU think it's immoral because you're a flawed, biased, mortal human being who is wrong about pretty much everything, but what you think is evil doesn't matter. We know for a fact (if you're Christian) that sin is evil, and anything that isn't sin isn't evil.

>YOU think it's immoral because you're a flawed, biased, mortal human being who is wrong about pretty much everything
Also I don't mean this to be an insult, we're all flawed, biased, mortal human beings who are wrong about pretty much everything.

This is what you are doing

You are also saying you axiomatically right because of your religion and anyone who is not part of it is always wrong.

>You are also saying you axiomatically right because of your religion and anyone who is not part of it is always wrong.
Well considering this is a religious question, yes I am saying this, because I know my religion is true and everyone else's is false. If I were to throw away any religious argumentation I would also need to throw out the entire question.

>We are not limited by only absolute good and absolute evil. In between those extremes lie a myriad of steps. If one of our actions fails to live up to the standard of absolute good that doesn't necessarily means that it was an evil one.
If a sin is simply something that goes against what is absolutely good, it must be not this absolute good, therefore evil. There is no "absolute evil", evil is simply anything that goes against the good that is the word of God. To try and reason that something can be against God but also not evil is pointless, you'd be arguing on terms that re simply rejected by the nature of the argument. What you call the absolute good is not a "standard", it's simply what is good. Anything not good must necessarily be not of God, and therefore evil.

>an omnibenevolent being would want the most kind outcome possible
I think "letting literally anyone into eternal paradise with the only requirement being that they admit that I'm letting them in" is about the most kind outcome you could have.

Problem of Evil will forever plague an all powerful, loving, knowing god.

>pick two
This would "solve" the issue.

A great deal of the "problem" of evil is meaningless if you have a 100% certain knowledge of an afterlife which will be better for virtuous people than their mortal lives were.

If you're God, and you see a barbarian horde putting pious innocents to the sword, are you going to lament their gruesome fate? No, you'll welcome them to Heaven and the victims will ultimately be glad for their deaths.

It doesn't apply to the Abrahamic God.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7

>I know my religion is true and everyone else's is false

And this is why some theists aren't worth debating with.

OP asked for a Judaeo-Christian perspective and I provided one, I don't know what the fuck else you want.

Not that guy, but I will very much like it when you stop worshipping your false christ and your false god, who even and /especially/ in the case that they are as they are described, /are wholly/ undeserving of worship.

My preference is that you come to be in the truth of this while you are alive. But the above will take place one way or the other, and in a very short space.

I was an atheist and became Christian on my own, I have no interest in going back.

You are slowly making me reconsider my Christianity.

All of your posts embarrass our religion. People like you probably give God a headache with your over-complications and boastful assumptions.

> implying god couldn't have changed the rules of logic for this to not have been true

>implying he does not have very good reason for doing so
>implying you know better than God and can tell him to do things differently
>implying that God can do anything wrong by the very definition of who God is

There is no problem of evil
It's an emotional "problem" and nothing more

>A chair isn't evil if the leg snaps off while you're sitting in it, it's unfortunate and unpleasant. Is God really "malevolent" if he doesn't keep your chair upright?
In this scenario the one who made the chair specifically chose to make it so that it would inevitably snap while someone is sitting in it even though he could, at no cost, ensure it would never snap, how is that not malevolent?

This comment is short enough to invite multiple interpretations.

One possible interpretation is that the poster is a very dull conventional theist, who does not even want to admit of the animating problem of the thread. The history of theology shows that intellectually honest apologists are at least willing to discuss the matter at length, and settle into their own squishy indefensible defenses of an unjust god. At least they try (although failing into squishy mystery), to their credit.

A second possible interpretation is that the poster is an atheist who (provisionally) correctly appraises the situation by correctly regarding a dumb, unthinking universe, finding no malice, and concluding that there is no problem of evil, absent god (outside of man, anyway, a smaller matter). The "problem" then becomes man's problem.

But of course the latter is disingenuous in that the problem of evil is clearly always and correctly a /theological/ problem, and one correctly directed towards such a god as history suggests. /Of course/ humans are regularly evil. Where else shall we place agency? When we're a bunch of chemicals giving rise to animals, "evil" can be more correctly explained in terms of competition among organisms, having anhedonic/painful effects. But once this god business gets involved, we're off on a hypothetical course which is itself of course only a weird projection of human drives, exteriorized onto god.

The point being that in view of an unjust god, which is the human historical conception of god (and exactly because humans are animals, and animals are obliged to be unpleasant toward one another at certain times), then /of course/ there is a problem of evil, which itself derives from the randomization of organism competition, which itself has no genuinely meaningful end, or to use the expensive five-dollar-word, "telos".

Nope

a scintillating rebuttal.

Here's how religious people solve the problem of evil.

>whatever god does, it is good

Oh for fuck sake. You detest Hume, but you'll hide behind him when it's convenient. You cunt.

>I know better than God
this is how non-religious people solve the problem of evil

>I know better than magical fairies

Come back to me when you:
A) Have a coherent definition of Gawd, preferably one that has consensus among the religious.
B) Have some method of determining what Gawd knows, feels or wants, and with proof that the method works.

Until then, your babble is no better than the Jonestown people. And at least they're not bothering us anymore.

>I will call it fairy tales and stop listening to it
This is how non-religious people resolve the problem of being wrong about religion

A) Catholic Church has a Magisterium inspired by the Holy Spirit that defines doctrine infallibly. If you don't agree with the Magisterium, you don't agree with God. Subjectivity solved. Just like people have freedom to sin, so they have freedom to reject truth. You will never have a 100% consensus among the religious because humans perceive and understand truth imperfectly. Disagreements are a human flaw , not a flaw of God.
B) This is partly answered in A. Either way you misunderstand what Christianity is. Christianity is not man trying to understand God. It is God teaching man to understand man. In the process we learn some things about him too, but his nature is not graspable to us. Ffs we are incapable of understanding what the fuck is going on a quantum level; don't get me started on how we have no clue what's going on at a cosmical level. And you think we can understand the nature of the creator of everything using our puny minds and our limited vocabulary based on those puny minds? You are delusional

>Until then, your babble is no better than the Jonestown people. And at least they're not bothering us anymore.
Nice fallacy. Whatever makes you sleep at night, I guess.

But you haven't demonstrated that any of what you claim is the actual word of God. But if you're the poster I'm thinking of, you'll either give a bible quote, or some rot about the word becoming flesh, because you seem literally incapable of understanding what proof is.

>But you haven't demonstrated that any of what you claim is the actual word of God
What evidence do you want exactly?
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (as said in Matthew 16:18). If you believe in Jesus you consequently believe that doctrine is preserved in the Catholic Church. You can look at history and see that the dogmas were preserved.

>What evidence do you want exactly?

Objective proof. If it fails to work because I disagree with it, it's not objective.

Also, I believe Jesus existed. But there's no evidence he founded squat (no, a book written with an obvious agenda doesn't count). In fact historical consensus seems to validate only that he was born, baptized, and crucified after doing some preaching.

>If it fails to work because I disagree with it, it's not objective
Get the fuck off of Veeky Forums right now.

No. If simple disagreement can poke holes in your proof, then it's not proof.

>This is how non-religious people resolve the problem of being wrong about religion
Don't make me laugh, you dimwit. I'm about as wrong about religion as your babble is right.

>A)
Prove it.

>B)
Prove it.

See, I asked you for some method of getting to all your inane conclusions that isn't mere bald assertion.

> If it fails to work because I disagree with it, it's not objective.
That's not an objective way of defining reality at all
>Objective proof
like what? define objective proof

>See, I asked you for some method of getting to all your inane conclusions that isn't mere bald assertion.
Christianity teaches us who we are better than any scientific paper will ever do. There is your proof.

Is there literally any other answer than "god works in mysterious ways"?

So God isn't all good, since he allows evil, despite being all powerful.
An all good and all powerful God would make it so people have free will, yet don't do evil.
That he lacks the power to do so makes him flawed, not all powerful.
The alternative is that he lacks the intention to do so, which makes him flawed, not all good.

>Christianity teaches us who we are better than any scientific paper will ever do. There is your proof.
That's not proof, and it's false, to boot. Human behavior is much better understood using the scientific method on every level, than the bold proclamations found in iron-age books.

Christianity teaches us practically nothing about who we are, so you're not even right about that. It's a collection of stories of failure by a celestial dictator, it teaches us more about this fictional figure than ourselves.

I'd love to hear what Christianity "teaches" us about ourselves that doesn't stand in relation to being servile to skydaddy.

>because I know my religion is true and everyone else's is false

You don't know this. You believe it. There is a huge difference.
The moment you confuse the two is the moment you declare yourself wrong.

>Human behavior is much better understood using the scientific method on every level
Just look around you. Science simply comes up with bullshit theories to enable every whim and fleshly desire of people.

>Christianity teaches us practically nothing about who we are
Completely wrong. I suggest you educate yourself.

>It's a collection of stories of failure by a celestial dictator, it teaches us more about this fictional figure than ourselves.
You are tipping really hard. God is not a dictator. In fact, quite the opposite. He solves our shit all the time, even though ungrateful little bitches like you insult him and refuse his love.

>I'd love to hear what Christianity "teaches" us about ourselves that doesn't stand in relation to being servile to skydaddy.
Read the Bible, learn about Catholicism, and you'll have your answer. You can't expect me to answer this question in detail in a Veeky Forums post.

I'm a pretty firm agnostic but I don't think the problem of evil is as strong an objection to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God as it is claimed.

If we grant that God does indeed have these qualities, then it follows that in the world he creates, any situation which we perceive as Evil would not be necessarily be EVIL, perceiving it as we are with our limited knowledge. If we're going to grant that God is omnibenevolent and all-powerful, it follows necessarily that the world he creates must have the least amount of evil necessary. So we essentially flip Leibniz in saying that this is the least bad of all possible worlds, rather than the best possible.

Of course, this is no way justifies belief in such a God in the first place (because you basically run into the ontological problem, which I think is far less sound), nor does it prove the existence of a Judeo-Christian God at all

>Just look around you. Science simply comes up with bullshit theories to enable every whim and fleshly desire of people.
Science is a framework for understanding the world around us. You've done nothing to refute my point.

>Completely wrong. I suggest you educate yourself.
Go on, educate me.

>You are tipping really hard. God is not a dictator.
"Not a dictator" who says shit like "worship me or burn forever"? Nah, don't buy it.

>Read the Bible, learn about Catholicism, and you'll have your answer. You can't expect me to answer this question in detail in a Veeky Forums post.
You have answered in NO detail, which makes me think you have no answer. Read a book that isn't the shitfest called the Bible for a change.

"God works in mysterious ways" is a declaration against free will, much like God being all knowing, and him knowing what you have done, and will do.
Removing free will removes evil as well, but most people aren't willing to take that trade.

>Science is a framework for understanding the world around us. You've done nothing to refute my point.
not an argument. You said science explains human nature. Then tell me what human nature is using science. I will be waiting.

>Go on, educate me.
I am not your teachers, we don't spoon-feed here. Start by why people sin, and why people are evil.

>"Not a dictator" who says shit like "worship me or burn forever"? Nah, don't buy it.
You have it the other way around. Because of original sin, everybody deserves to go to hell. We are tainted and corrupted, hell is the only possible consequence. God though made up a plan so that not only can we be saved from that destiny, but it is through our own free will, by accepting Jesus, his sacrifice, and his sacraments through the Church that we are finally saved.
If God was a dictator he would have simply destroyed us when Adam sinned, or he wouldn't have given a shit and let us all go to hell.

>You have answered in NO detail, which makes me think you have no answer. Read a book that isn't the shitfest called the Bible for a change.
I cannot answer in detail because of how rich the topic is. I suggest you educate yourself and find out how deep and enlightening Catholicism is

>Start by why people sin, and why people are evil.

Not him, but ignorance of the consequences, and over the top addiction to particular types of stimulation.

>not an argument. You said science explains human nature. Then tell me what human nature is using science. I will be waiting.
Learn to read, strawmanning religious asstard. I said science explains human behavior much better than your looney tunes book.

But, still there is an answer to your question. Human nature is the propagation of their genes, i.e. evolutionary processes.

>I am not your teachers, we don't spoonfeed here
And that only seems to be because you're incapable of it, not some effort to save time.

>You have it the other way around.
No, I don't. God created the rules himself, and furthermore, I'll be delighted to know why people who did not commit original sin are punished for it.

>If God was a dictator he would have simply destroyed us when Adam sinned, or he wouldn't have given a shit and let us all go to hell.
And you say this based on what? Who says God can't simply be the petty, sadistic prick he's portrayed as in the Bible?

>I cannot answer in detail because of how rich the topic is. I suggest you educate yourself and find out how deep and enlightening Catholicism is
Are you aware of what the word NO (none, nada, nil) means? Me saying you "answered it in NO detail" means you didn't answer at all. Again, reading comprehension.

>ignorance of the consequences
the consequence is eternal damnation

>I said science explains human behavior much better than your looney tunes book.
Care to empirically prove it, though? It seems to me that the more society rejects religion, the more confused, lost, and unable to find an identity people become
>Human nature is the propagation of their genes, i.e. evolutionary processes.
That is circular reasoning. Creating life does not give meaning to life itself. Evolution does not tell you anything about who you are supposed to be. Passing down your genes is of your actions, but not its goal. Nobody ever did anything "to pass down their genes", not even the act that brings to that.
>yeah lad I totally want to fuck that bird to pass on my genes
things nobody ever said
>And that only seems to be because you're incapable of it, not some effort to save time.
Nope, I already explained why and my reasoning makes perfect sense. Free to delude yourself though.
> God created the rules himself
God created the rules, and we disobeyed them. So yeah, it is our fault.
> I'll be delighted to know why people who did not commit original sin are punished for it.
Because sin corrupts us and makes us incapable of being in the presence of God. It's as if you were complaining that you should not suffer radioactivity after a nuclear explosion because you didn't set the bomb off and it happened in the past. Actions have consequences. You might not like it, but that won't change the truth.
> Who says God can't simply be the petty, sadistic prick he's portrayed as in the Bible?
Just look at his actions. He sends his only Son on earth to take on himself the sins of men, so that we can be restored to how God intended us. All he does in the Old Testament is to bring forth that moment. All he does after that moment is to let everyone know of him, so that they can accept salvation and be saved.

>e saying you "answered it in NO detail" means you didn't answer at all.
I never said I answered it, nor that I answered it in detail. I said the complete opposite. Maybe it is you who should brush up on his reading skills. Start by reading about Catholicism and how rich our faith is. How much it tells us about how God loves us

For some reason you think I want an in-depth answer. I don't, any depth will suffice so long as it is an answer, and we can move from there.

>read muh religious apologetics
Can't even boil down the basic points of what you're talking about? Fuck off, retard.

I am not telling you to read apologetics. I am telling you to read about the faith. While you read about it, meditate on it and ask yourself how it applies to your life, what message it's conveying.
It helps to read what Catholic saints wrote. They give you an insight in the thoughts and practices of people who have a great love for God and understand him better than most.
If you are sincere in your pursuit of truth, and REALLY open your heart, you will find what you are looking for. Ask God for guidance, and he will give it to you, because he loves you.
Good luck user, and may God bless you.

So you have no argument, no point to make, and your answer is a request that the other guy brainwashes himself?

If you are sincere in your pursuit of truth, and REALLY open your heart, you will examine evidence, proof, arguments, and accept them, rather than clinging to belief.
Truth is in knowing, not in believing. Truth is in things that are, not things you wish were.

How would I explain something like quantum mechanics in a sentence? You are being illogical. I am telling him to study about the faith because he is judging it without knowing it.
I open my heart every single moment of my life.
I have made plenty of arguments, not sure how that relates to this aspect in particular, seeing as my argument is exactly that he needs to educate himself, and no short statement, no matter how poignant, will ever change his preconceptions all of a sudden, seeing as his point of view is that of somebody uneducated in the subject. The rest of my posts adress some of the arguments he raised in a more specific way.
You are obviously clouded by your bias, user.